IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/1168r.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing data gathered in an online and a laboratory experiment using the Trustlab platform

Author

Listed:
  • Nobuyuki Hanaki
  • Takahiro Hoshino
  • Kohei Kubota
  • Fabrice Murtin
  • Masao Ogaki
  • Fumio Ohtake
  • Naoko Okuyama

Abstract

This paper compares the results of an experiment conducted both in the laboratory and online with participants recruited from the same subject pool using the Trustlab platform. This platform has been used to obtain incentivized and internationally comparable behavioral economics measures of altruism, cooperation, reciprocity, trust, and trustworthiness, employing representative samples in many countries. We find little significant difference between the results from sessions conducted in the laboratory and online. While the existing literature shows that the choice between laboratory and online experiments can cause differences in results in some cases, our findings support the hypothesis that they do not cause differences in the behavioral economics measures when using the Trustlab platform.

Suggested Citation

  • Nobuyuki Hanaki & Takahiro Hoshino & Kohei Kubota & Fabrice Murtin & Masao Ogaki & Fumio Ohtake & Naoko Okuyama, 2022. "Comparing data gathered in an online and a laboratory experiment using the Trustlab platform," ISER Discussion Paper 1168r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Jun 2022.
    • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1168r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/dp/2022/DP1168R.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jérôme Hergueux & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2015. "Social preferences in the online laboratory: a randomized experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 251-283, June.
    2. Fischbacher, Urs & Gachter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2001. "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 397-404, June.
    3. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    5. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    6. Yann Algan, 2018. "Trust and Social Capital," Post-Print hal-03391911, HAL.
    7. Masao Ogaki, 2022. "Economics of the community mechanism," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 433-457, July.
    8. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Keigo Inukai & Takehito Masuda & Yuta Shimodaira, 2022. "Comparing behavior between a large sample of smart students and a representative sample of Japanese adults," ISER Discussion Paper 1160, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Duch, Matthias L. & Grossmann, Max R.P. & Lauer, Thomas, 2020. "z-Tree unleashed: A novel client-integrating architecture for conducting z-Tree experiments over the Internet," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    10. Frechette, Guillaume R. & Schotter, Andrew (ed.), 2015. "Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195328325.
    11. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    12. Andreoni, James & Kuhn, Michael A. & Sprenger, Charles, 2015. "Measuring time preferences: A comparison of experimental methods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 451-464.
    13. Arnstein Aassve & Letizia Mencarini & Francesco Chiocchio & Francesco Gandolfi & Arianna Gatta & Francesco Mattioli, 2018. "Trustlab Italy: a New Dataset for the study of Trust, Family Demography and Personality," Working Papers 115, "Carlo F. Dondena" Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
    14. Sophie Cetre & Yann Algan & Gianluca Grimalda & Fabrice Murtin & Louis Putterman & Ulrich Schmidt & Vincent Siegerink, 2020. "Ethnic bias, economic success and trust: Findings from large sample experiments in Germany and the United States through the Trustlab platform," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2020/04, OECD Publishing.
    15. Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(2), pages 687-719, February.
    16. Katrin Schmelz & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2020. "Reactions to (the absence of) control and workplace arrangements: experimental evidence from the internet and the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 933-960, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Masao Ogaki, 2022. "Economics of the community mechanism," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 433-457, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Takayuki Hoshino & Kohei Kubota & Fabrice Murtin & Masao Ogaki & Fumio Ohtake & Naoko Okuyama, 2022. "Comparing data gathered in an online and a laboratory experiment using the Trustlab platform," ISER Discussion Paper 1168, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    2. Jonathan Chapman & Erik Snowberg & Stephanie Wang & Colin Camerer, 2018. "Loss Attitudes in the U.S. Population: Evidence from Dynamically Optimized Sequential Experimentation (DOSE)," NBER Working Papers 25072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Andrej Gill & Florian Hett & Johannes Tischer, 2022. "Time Inconsistency and Overdraft Use: Evidence from Transaction Data and Behavioral Measurement Experiments," Working Papers 2205, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    4. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    6. Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Dahmann, Sarah C. & Kamhöfer, Daniel A. & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2022. "The Determinants of Population Self-Control," IZA Discussion Papers 15175, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Angerer, Silvia & Bolvashenkova, Jana & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Lergetporer, Philipp & Sutter, Matthias, 2023. "Children’s patience and school-track choices several years later: Linking experimental and field data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    8. Joshua Tasoff & Wenjie Zhang, 2022. "The Performance of Time-Preference and Risk-Preference Measures in Surveys," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1149-1173, February.
    9. Catola, Marco & D’Alessandro, Simone & Guarnieri, Pietro & Pizziol, Veronica, 2021. "Personal norms in the online public good game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    10. Thiemann, Petra & Schulz, Jonathan & Sunde, Uwe & Thöni, Christian, 2022. "Selection into experiments: New evidence on the role of preferences, cognition, and recruitment protocols," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    11. Gill, Andrej & Hett, Florian & Tischer, Johannes, 2022. "Time inconsistency and overdraft use: Evidence from transaction data and behavioral measurement experiments," SAFE Working Paper Series 347, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    12. Felix Kölle & Simone Quercia & Egon Tripodi, 2023. "Social Preferences under the Shadow of the Future," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 406, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    13. Sven Grüner, 2022. "Rethinking how risk aversion and impatience are linked with cognitive ability: experimental findings from agricultural students and farmers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 248-259, July.
    14. Sébastien Duchêne & Adrien Nguyen-Huu & Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger, 2022. "Risk-return trade-offs in the context of environmental impact: a lab-in-the-field experiment with finance professionals," CEE-M Working Papers hal-03883121, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    15. Riehm, Tobias & Fugger, Nicolas & Gillen, Philippe & Gretschko, Vitali & Werner, Peter, 2022. "Social norms, sanctions, and conditional entry in markets with externalities: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    16. Inhwa Kim & Keith J. Gamble, 2022. "Too much or too little information: how unknown uncertainty fuels time inconsistency," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 1-33, February.
    17. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Yutaka Kayaba & Jun Maekawa & Hitoshi Matsushima, 2021. "Two Experiments on Trading Information Goods in a Network," ISER Discussion Paper 1151r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Oct 2023.
    18. Kesternich, Iris & Schumacher, Heiner & Siflinger, Bettina & Valder, Franziska, 2022. "Reservation wages and labor supply," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 583-607.
    19. Charles Ayoubi & Boris Thurm, 2023. "Knowledge diffusion and morality: Why do we freely share valuable information with Strangers?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 75-99, January.
    20. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1168r. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.